Only about 16% of gun owners are hunters.
All these politicians and gun control ****s seem to have failed American history. And have never read the constitution.
Only about 16% of gun owners are hunters.
All these politicians and gun control ****s seem to have failed American history. And have never read the constitution.
Obama still backs new gun ban; top senator less certain
President Barack Obama on Monday reiterated his call for a comprehensive package of steps against gun violence as the focus on possible Senate legislation appeared to narrow to expanded background checks and limited ammunition magazines, rather than a ban on semi-automatic rifles that mimic assault weapons.
Obama took part in a discussion with Minneapolis officials before telling police officers and others that an increase in gun violence nationwide, including the Connecticut school massacre in December, made it vital to address the issue now.
"No law or set of laws can keep our children completely safe," Obama said in calling for "basic, commonsense steps to reduce gun violence."
He added, "if there's one life we can save, we've got an obligation to try."
Obama emphasized his support for banning semi-automatic rifles modeled after military weapons as part of an updated version of an earlier weapons ban that expired in 2004.
Opponents led by the influential National Rifle Association, oppose any ban on weapons, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has indicated that such a provision faced an uphill struggle.
Reid told ABC on Sunday that he backed expanding background checks to private gun sales at shows and other steps, but he refused to endorse a ban on what are called assault-style rifles modeled after military weapons.
Obama shooting image gets blasted on the Web
A popular version is the AR-15 semi-automatic rifle that can be purchased with magazines holding 30 rounds. A similar weapon was used in the Connecticut school shooting that killed 20 first graders and revived a national focus on tougher gun control measures.
While Obama and some top Democrats, including Sen. Dianne Feinstein of California, seek a ban on many semi-automatic rifles, the NRA and politicians from both major parties oppose such a move as an infringement on constitutional rights.
In his remarks Monday, Obama rejected that argument, urging supporters to tell opponents of renewed weapons ban that "there's no legislation to eliminate all guns; there's no legislation being proposed to subvert the Second Amendment."
Obama's trip to Minneapolis was intended to raise attention to steps taken in the city, including a recent regional gun summit hosted by Mayor R.T. Rybak and Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett.
Both cities have experienced mass shootings in recent months, and Obama met with two Minneapolis-area law enforcement officials last week when he discussed the issue with local police and sheriffs department members at the White House.
The NRA and its leading supporters in Congress argue that steps proposed by Obama won't work and would fail to address the problem.
For example, they say criminals skirt background checks, so expanding the system would miss the main target of the legislation. They also contend that the semi-automatic rifles targeted by Feinstein in a proposal introduced last week are used in a fraction of the nation's gun violence.
Gun debate: Where is the middle ground?
Obama and other supporters of stronger gun control measures say all possible efforts must be made to address what they call a chronic and growing problem of gun violence, particularly involving vulnerable targets such as students.
Reid of Nevada is the top Senate Democrat, who sets the chamber's legislative schedule. He said Sunday that he wants the Judiciary Committee to produce a bill that could be debated by the full Senate and would be open to proposed amendments by any senator.
However, Reid signaled that the committee version would lack the ban on assault-style weapons.
"If Dianne Feinstein, by the time it's through the Judiciary Committee, if she doesn't have her assault weapons, at least let her have an opportunity to offer this amendment" on the Senate floor, Reid told ABC.
Reid, who noted he owned guns and was a former law officer, said he opposed the Clinton-era assault weapons ban that expired midway through the Bush administration.
He called for expanding background checks and steps to halt federal gun trafficking while saying the Senate should "take a look at" unspecified limits on ammunition magazines.
Asked about backing he has received from the NRA, Reid said that "just because they resist it doesn't mean we can't do things."
Other steps under consideration include better monitoring of people with mental illness to prevent them from obtaining guns.
Democrats have said the background check measure would stand the best chance of garnering bipartisan support, including from some pro-gun Democrats. Even if passed by the Senate, a gun bill would face tougher scrutiny in the Republican-led House.
Obama said Monday that lawmakers in Congress from both parties were working together on plans that would expand background checks to all gun purchases and criminalize "straw purchases" in which legal gun owners buy weapons for people prohibited from doing so.
The faces of America's gun debate
Guns sold through private sales currently avoid background checks -- the so-called gun show loophole.
Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer of New York said last week that he was in talks with colleagues -- including several who are ranked highly by the NRA -- on possible legislation to expand background checks on private gun sales.
Sources close to both Schumer and Republican Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma told CNN the two were in serious discussions about co-sponsoring a bill to strengthen background checks. Schumer sits on the Judiciary Committee, while Coburn is a former member.
However, NRA chief executive Wayne LaPierre told the panel that the current background check system doesn't work, so expanding it would only create an unmanageable government bureaucracy instead of reducing gun crime.
During the Super Bowl on Sunday night, a group called Mayors Against Illegal Guns broadcast an ad showing the NRA's LaPierre, in 1999, endorsing the expanded background checks his group now opposes.
Supporters of gun control argue that the constitutional right to bear arms can be limited, for example, by the existing ban on private citizens possessing grenade launchers and other military weaponry.
However, Denver University law professor David Kopel said last week that the Supreme Court made clear that gun control could not include weapons used commonly by law-abiding citizens, such as the top-selling AR-15 that Feinstein's legislation would ban.
I don't understand how dollars prevent or patch violence
Police barred from Vermont gun range
The battle over the right to bear arms is flaring in Vermont, where a local gun range has moved to prohibit the Burlington Police Department from training at its facilities after the City Council voted to advance a measure banning semi-automatic rifles and large-capacity magazines.
The leadership of the Lamoille Valley Fish and Game Club explained that it's "difficult" for the club to support the city -- even its officers -- given the actions of the council.
Anyone else noticing that their gun grabbing friends seem more pissed off lately. The few that I know, or have on FB, seem to be throwing a little temper tantrum because they seem to know that no ban is going to even get through the Senate much less the House.
Also it seems like there has been a subtle shifting of the debate to focus on background checks instead of the bans. The tears of failure coming from the dems are pretty damn sweet.
We just love the tax revenue that the fear got us.
Background check dollars turning into obama phones is the sweetest of pubnectar.
i don't have any gun grabbing in-laws either. hell, my wife's almost 80 year old grandmother carries concealed.
They are off of the whole gun/mag ban thing. They know they don't have a chance with that. Now they are pushing hard for universial background checks/Registry. Which is what they wanted all along. They want to know who has what, so when it is time to take them, they don't have to look as hard.
I'm sure all of the crimnals will run and get a back ground check when they are getting rid of their stolen guns.
Watching that vid, I just envision Piers and company with their fingers in the ears saying LA LA LA LA LA.
The sack of shit anti-gunners are trying every means possible to ban guns. The latest in Colorado:
Colorado Democrats want gun manufacturers held liable for crimes committed with their guns
The owners and makers of assault-style weapons could soon be held legally liable in Colorado for crimes committed with their guns, if sponsors of a new gun-control package have their way.
State Democrats unveiled the broad package of measures this week, joined by gun violence survivors from the Columbine, Aurora and Sandy Hook shootings.
The eight bills detailed at a press conference Tuesday tackle gun control as well as mental health issues tied to gun violence. Among them are measures to put universal background checks in place for private gun sales and a bill to ban sales of high-capacity ammunition magazines.
But getting the most attention is the gun manufacturer-liability measure.
“This is the most aggressive anti-gun legislation ever floated in the country,” Republican Sen. Greg Brophy told FoxNews.com Thursday. “To hold everybody in the entire chain of possession responsible for a crime committed by one person? The manufacturer, dealer and owners? That’s equivalent to blaming Coors for a drunk driver and the 7-Eleven after someone steals a 12-pack.”
The proposal would hold manufacturers of firearms, as well as sellers, responsible for crimes committed with those guns. The measure apparently conflicts with an existing federal law, but Democrats in the state reportedly say they want to get that federal law repealed.
Republicans say the gun liability measure would effectively ban those weapons because manufacturers and retailers would be afraid to sell them.
While Democrats hold a majority in both state houses, though, getting the sweeping series of bills passed will be an uphill battle.
Colorado has taken center stage in the country’s fight over gun control. David Keene, the head of the National Rifle Association, is in Denver to meet with Democratic Gov. John Hickenlooper and Senate President John Morse.
Keene called universal background checks a political "sweet spot," during an interview with The Associated Press on Thursday. He added that the current background check systems are underfunded and that forcing them on private sales would be logistically difficult.
Colorado’s governor has said in the past he supports background checks, but he has remained publicly quiet about the legislative package introduced earlier this week.
“The governor is hiding under his desk when it comes to answering the hard questions,” Brophy said. “It took me 30 seconds to figure out what the plans do. The governor shouldn’t be given a pass. He needs to address the issue.”
Calls for comment to the governor’s office were not immediately returned.
Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013...#ixzz2KGil7Dh0
Sent from my Nexus 10 using Tapatalk HD
The number of democrap pol's who trample the constitution is amazing.
I just don't understand how a person feels like its their right to smoke weed but can't understand why someone else feels it's a right to own a firearm.
Not all felons are felons because of a violent crime.
I have a friend who was charged with a felony for weed possession on school grounds his senior year 2 days after his 18th birthday.
Should he never own a gun or be able to vote?
Are you opposed to it? (Remember making it against the law does not keep it from happening...also remember there are vast amounts of felons that are non violent).
Do you think felons, being citizens, don't deserve the right to protect themselves from violence?
As far as owning a gun, I think it depends on the felony. Convicted of a violent felony, nope. Non-violent felonies depending on the felony, I'd be acceptable to after a certain set period of time of not committing any more crimes.
Calif. lawmakers seek toughest gun laws in nation
Weeks after New York enacted the nation's toughest gun laws, California lawmakers said Thursday they want their state to do even more in response to recent mass shootings, particularly the Connecticut school massacre.
Democrats who control the state Legislature revealed 10 proposals that they said would make California the most restrictive state for possessing firearms.
They were joined at a Capitol news conference by San Francisco Mayor Ed Lee and Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, along with several police chiefs.
"California has always been a leader on the issue of gun safety," Villaraigosa said. "New York has stepped up and stepped forward. California needs to answer the call."
Among the measures is one that would outlaw the future sale of semi-automatic rifles with detachable magazines. The restriction would prevent quick reloading by requiring bullets to be loaded one at a time.
Lawmakers also want to make some prohibitions apply to current gun owners, not just to people who buy weapons in the future.
Like New York, California also would require background checks for buying ammunition and would add to the list of prohibited weapons.
Those buying ammunition would have to pay a fee and undergo an initial background check by the state Department of Justice, similar to what is required now before buyers can purchase a weapon. Subsequent background checks would be done instantly by an ammunition seller checking the Justice Department's records.
The legislation also would ban possession of magazines holding more than 10 bullets, even by those who now own them legally. All weapons would have to be registered.
Sam Paredes, executive director of Gun Owners of California, promised that gun proponents will fight the measures in court if they become law.
"It strikes me as if these folks are playing some sort of game of one-upsmanship with New York at the expense of law-abiding citizens, and that's just unconscionable," he said about lawmakers.
Republicans say the Democrats are exploiting the shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary to push their own agendas, reports CBS Sacramento station KOVR-TV. "The laws they are (proposing) would have made no difference in the Connecticut shooting whatsoever," Sen. Dan Logue said.
He added that lawmakers need to focus on other issues that lead to violence. "We've got the issue of PlayStations, where there is violent games," Logue said. "I mean, what about Hollywood and what they are putting out?"
Three bills have been introduced, with others to come before this month's deadline for submitting legislation.
The measures are the most stringent to date among numerous proposals introduced this year to strengthen California's firearm regulations.
Senate President Pro Tem Darrell Steinberg said he is confident Democrats can use their majorities in the Assembly and Senate to send the measures to Democratic Gov. Jerry Brown this year.
Brown has declined to comment on weapons legislation before it reaches him.
Steinberg said the measures are designed to close numerous loopholes that gun manufacturers have exploited to get around California's existing restrictions.
Those measures had been the strongest in the nation until Gov. Andrew Cuomo signed New York's new law last month.
Other proposed measures in California would ban so-called "bullet buttons" that can be used to quickly detach and reload magazines in semi-automatic rifles, and update the legal definition of shotguns to prohibit a new version that can rapidly fire shotgun shells and .45-caliber ammunition.
The state also would restrict the lending of guns to keep weapons from felons, mentally ill people and others who are prohibited from ownership.
When a person is released from such confines we should not limit their ability to protect themselves. If a person is set into the world, then his debt has been paid, and the expectation is that the person is not guilty of any future crime that MAY be committed.
If the argument truly is that a gun is merely a tool, should we ban other things that could be used as weapons from felons?
The problem with felons is that they tend to be repeat offenders.
LINK77 percent of felony defendants have at least one prior arrest and 69 percent have multiple prior arrests. 61 percent have at least one conviction and 49 percent have multiple convictions.
35 percent of those charged with felonies have 10 or more prior arrests and another 17 percent have between 5 to 9 arrests, thus 52 percent of charged felons have been arrested and before the courts many times.
40 percent of those charged with burglary and motor vehicle theft have 10 or more arrests. 30 percent of violent offenders have 10 or more prior arrests.
40 percent of all felony convictions serve time in a state prison and 55 percent of those convicted for violent felonies serve time in state prisons. More serve less than six months in county jails.
Analysis: The criminal justice system is dominated by individuals with multiple arrests and multiple convictions. As a variety of criminological research indicates, approximately a third of felony defendants are considered high-risk offenders.
Giving convicted felons the legal right to own a gun is ludicrous, but the law is not going to stop them from posessing a gun, just like it doesn't stop them now.
You think we should just suspend due process and such as well?
So back in gun free Chicago Mooch will be grandstanding at the funeral for the 15 year old girl killed in the crossfire of gang violence. No word on if she plans to attend the funerals of the other 40 people murdered that month.
There may be a small number of felons who may well be able to return to society as law abiding citizens and as such may deserve to have their full rights restored. But the data suggests that most felons tend to become repeat offenders. With violent felons leading the pack.
Can you imagine striking down freedom of religion to felons? How about freedom of speech. How about we can search and seize anything we want from felons?
Driver's licenses do not equate, they are not constitutionally protected.
I agree with you that recidivism is a problem...lets fix it. Lets make it to where violent offenders are not released until they are capable of doing so without breaking the law again. Lets actually treat these problems instead of just caging people.
I don't support the death penalty for this reason, and it is the same reason I support full legalization of chemical adulterants and also why felons should get to maintain gun ownership.